Are English people treated worse than the rest of the UK?

[Haruka]

Not a goady thread, I am foreign-born and reading the new rules on bus passes today has once again thrown up this question for me. Perhaps there are other systems in place and someone can shine a light on this and educate me.

But why is it that English people seem to constantly have worse conditions than the rest of Britain, and are we thus subsidising the other nations?

• Bus passes: new rules will link eligibility in England to state pension age, while old people in Scotland and Wales will remain eligible from age 60
• University fees: no tuition fees for Scots, but the other nations pay fees of almost 10k.
• No prescription charges in Wales or Scotland, but English people pay £9.90 per item. We all use the NHS.

I'm sure there are more. I do not mean to insult anyone; these are just current rules. So why is it that in all 3 examples the English are worst off? Do people in the other nations pay more through taxes?

It's not odd at all - who would England seek to become independent from? England politically dominates due to number of MPs.

But apparently we're a huge burden and they're fed up of hearing us complain. It is odd that England alone has enough seats in Westminster to unilaterally leave the union, yet there's no single pro-indy party.

This might come as a shock to you. But we don't want your money. Hence our support for independence. Secondly, all our tax revenue goes south. We get a little over half of it back. Politicians in England splash the rest of it on crap that we rarely ever see back. Things like the HS2 and the new Manchester project. Huge projects that never get built in Scotland or Wales. We'd rather keep our own money and make our own laws. Btw, London also subsidizes many regions in England. The problem is the way the union works. It's set up to benefit London and the south West. Which superficially makes England look like it's singlehandedly carrying the UK. But that's once again, because of how the union has deliberately been run. Other areas have been left to rot.

No

Excellent we should do that - I think you will be disappointed in how far your tax revenue goes- England subsidises a lot more than just free prescriptions and free higher education- that is why the Scots did not vote for devolution, they know it is not in their interest.
Far more tax revenue goes North from England than goes South from Scotland, and always has, ever since 1707, when it was absorbed because it was completely bankcrupt, but if I were from Scotland I would probably feel the same way you do- self determination is always more satisfying.

They’re choosing to spend differently
eg Scotland gets free university tuition fees but FE is underfunded.

www.eis.org.uk/further-education-news/fefundingcuts

Left wing government's provide better public services, for a higher tax.

Not sure this is what we're seeing atm. Well, maybe the higher tax bit.

Hahahaha fuck no. That's like when middle aged white men claim to be the ignored middle or some shite.

"that is why the Scots did not vote for devolution, they know it is not in their interest." It's comments like this which show just how uninformed you are on the subject. Scotland already has devolution, because WE voted for it. Our income tax is slightly higher than it is in England, and that covers things like college tuition and prescriptions. Not English tax payers. It's ignorant comments like this which only strengthens our desire to leave the union.

Second, I'm curious, would you hand over sovereignty of your country to a much larger political power, for what you "believe" Scots get from you? Would you be happy, if say, Beijing replaced Westminster. And England sent 57 MPs to Beijing, in a parliament that was made up of 650 MPS. Of which over 550 are Chinese. 57 are English, and the rest are made up of other small countries? Beijing makes decisions in parliament that are most often the opposite of what England voted. But China's significantly larger, so China virtually always decides for you, your laws, your trade, etc etc. All for what you believe Scotland gets from being in a union with England.

Would you support this? Would most English people support this?

" always has, ever since 1707, when it was absorbed because it was completely bankcrupt"

At the beginning of the 1700s, England's national debt was about 15 million. after decades and decades of being at war with France. Scotland's national debt was a little over 100 thousand pound. A the time, England was five times the size of Scotland's population. So call that £500,000 Scottish debt, vs £15 million English debt, adjusted for population.

The English parliament realised they couldn't afford to increase the taxes on the English without there being another revolt, rioting and possible insurrection by the English people, who were already being taxed very heavily in order to pay for the wars with France.

An answer to that problem was to absorb Scotland into a 'union' with just one parliament and just one place that taxes were taken in by the crown.
That being England and Westminster. By doing so it'd mean that all the English debts that'd been accrued could be split between both nations and have Scotland and the Scottish take on a share of all those debts meaning they'd not have to significantly raise the taxes levied on the English but instead have access to all of Scotland's taxes generated here and have them paid to the English Treasury instead.

The Darien scheme bankrupted some Scottish lairds, not Scotland itself.
Did you know that just 6 years into it, every Scottish MP in Westminster, voted to abolish the union. But they were significantly outvoted, and the vote was squashed. The union should have been over then and there.

In that case it should have been dissolved then. I was surprised because l have studied this period and have never heard the Scottish MP voted to dissolve.
The Darien Scheme was more profound in affect than just bankrupting a few Lairds, however.